11–20 of 132 posts
I think the author doesn't give enough credit to things that OCaml has that Haskell doesn't have: a powerful module system (ie, functors), polymorphic variants/subtyping, etc.
I think the author doesn't give enough credit to things that OCaml has that Haskell doesn't have: a powerful module system (ie, functors), polymorphic variants/subtyping, etc.
I think the ML module system (in OCaml and other languages) is very powerful because it allows you to abstract and operate not only on types but also on values simultaneously. F#, Haskell, and most others lack this but it would be great if they were to officially adopt it. OCaml is also very easy to learn and I seriously recommend Real World OCaml - it's free online and excellent.
I think the author doesn't give enough credit to things that OCaml has that Haskell doesn't have: a powerful module system (ie, functors), polymorphic variants/subtyping, etc.
I think the author doesn't give enough credit to things that OCaml has that Haskell doesn't have: a powerful module system (ie, functors), polymorphic variants/subtyping, etc.
There's a bunch of other nice features of OCaml such as named arguments, fast compile times, strictness, c-types, and reasonable records. To achieve (some of the feature in) Elm style "structural subtyping" records in OCaml you use the more verbose "object" keyword which is just a record with row polymorphism. Most choose to stick with standard records because they compile to more efficient code. I think the ML modul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bunch of other nice features of OCaml such as named arguments, fast compile times, strictness, c-types, and reasonable records. To achieve (some of the feature in) Elm style "structural subtyping" records in OCaml you use the more verbose "object" keyword which is just a record with row polymorphism. Most choose to stick with standard records because they compile to more efficient code. I think the ML modul…
Total agreement about most of those things, but I want to indicate that Haskell has some amount of row typing available via libraries like Vinyl and it certainly has c-types.
I especially don't understand how people get tripped up by laziness. 99.9% of strict code will work with no changes in a lazy environment. The rest usually just needs a slight tweak to avoid memory leaks.
To anyone considering undertaking the modest effort required to learn Haskell, I completely recommend it. My code in every language has tangibly improved.
Now that .net is going cross platform, I see a great future of f# (another variant of ML family). Its got multi processors support too.
Compare these two Stack Overflow "getting started with" answers for Haskell http://stackoverflow.com/a/1016986 and F# http://stackoverflow.com/a/11974625 With the Haskell answers I don't know or care what platforms, operating systems, editors, or IDEs they are using. With the Microsoft answer it's like a dystopian scene filled with Branding, Branding, and more Branding.
Personally, I spend a lot of time experimenting with languages and ecosystems and the ".NET" platform is the only one where I feel the need to put on a plaid shirt and dockers with a Windows Phone on my belt and schedule a conference call with a committee at Microsoft to tell them to give it a rest already.